Posted on 03/05/2011 11:00:45 PM PST by OrthodoxKirkPresbyterian
A new book by one of the country’s most influential evangelical pastors, challenging traditional Christian views of heaven, hell and eternal damnation, has created an uproar among evangelical leaders
In a book to be published this month, the pastor, Rob Bell, known for his provocative views and appeal among the young, describes as “misguided and toxic” the dogma that “a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
A lot of people have a hard time with hell, which exists in eternity, partly because they do not realize what eternity. Nobody really does. The only way I can wrap my mind about it is by juxtaposing it with the reality we all currently occupy thusly: Time is a current flowing in an ocean called eternity.
The core of the whole thing to me is that I believe that the opposite of eternal life is eternal death. That is, once you are dead, you STAY dead. The body dies in this reality. All that is left is the spirit. If one does not accept the saving grace of the atoning blood of Christ, then their spirit does not go to eternal life, but death. That is my perspective, but whenever I state an opinion on this I am mindful of the scripture that says that now we see as through a glass dimly, but then clearly.
One thing’s for sure though: I don’t do the “turn or burn” message and do not think it is scriptural. Rather, I go for “Turn or die - permanently.” Which may explain why some people CHOOSE death. Which is also something I believe.
>>Not true, in revelations we read about hell.<<
To be fair, in Revelation (no “s” at the end) we read about a LOT of stuff that is mindbogglingly controversial. Pre-tribulationists see the rapture in chapter 4, while mid-tribulationists see it in chapter 7. And the other chapters spawn no end to controversy.
If revelation is your only source, you are not going to get very far convincing people of your theory.
>>I believe indifference is the opostive of love.<<
I strongly agree with that. Fear, otoh, is the opposite of faith, and vice versa.
>>Bell’s teaching style is to ask hard questions rather than just hand out easy answers.<<
I kept getting banned from DU by using that exact tactic. People don’t like hard questions.
The problem I’ve always had with Calvinism/Reformed (TULIP) is the fact that God is a JUST God.
He is Sovereign so He has the authority, He has the power but is He justified in this picking and choosing?
Example: Is God then justified in allowing a child to come into the world born into poverty, to be abused by her father, forced into prostitution and drugs barely into her teens and then having her life ended by some sicko before she even reaches the age of 20.
At the end of this short and pitiful life she then stands before the God of the universe only to hear the words “Get thee from Me for I never CHOSE you!” Sorry but where’s the justification in this?
I believe in an eternal heaven and hell but I don’t believe the TULIP interpretation of scripture. We must understand that God is all knowing and that prior to the creation of the world there were decisions that were made which obviously affected the final results. Some decisions that come to my limited mind are how much interaction between God and man and when, Obviously that Jesus was to come and allow Himself to be crucified for our sins and finally who are the people God needed to Personally get involved with to bring about His ultimate plan (Paul comes to mind).
All this was to bring about the ideal outcome of maximizing those that would come to trust in the Lord. So when looked at in this fashion then yes God chose this direction earth would take and ultimately then God did (in a way) choose who would and who would not be saved but He didn’t do it by say these I will save and those I will not.
Maybe I’ve not explained myself well but to me it all boils down to justification.
Then you believe there are sinless immortal people in the world?
The T in Tulip came from the Council of Ephesus in the year 381. The doctrine of Pelagius had spread over the known world before that. His belief was that sin was only learned (not inherited) and therefore there could be sinless immortal people in the world (like Romulus and Remus, supposedly raised by a she-wolf).
So, I am assuming that you believe there are sinless immortals in the world?
Nor the Holiness of God. God cannot tolerate or allow sin in heaven because of His Holiness. Excluded is anything or anyone who is not holy.
Because Mankind died with Adam, none have a righteousness or holiness of their own. None can attain heaven on their own merits due to their sinful nature, but also due to even one sin added to it. Paul in Romans agrees with King David - None are righteous, NOT EVEN ONE.
Therefore it is imperative to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the narrow gate - that gate is Christ. For there is no other way that faith upon Christ alone and His death upon the cross paying for the sins of folks like us. There is no other way.
And if God will not accept anyone without that sheepskin, there has to be a place for immortal souls to go. And there is no other way of putting it, but that place is Hell.
It is a place where folks cannot move and burn like incense on a plate. They serve him as they were designed, but not in the presence of pure love, pure joy, and pure holiness of which God is.
Therefore, logically, those who do not believe in Hell, do not believe in the Holiness of God.
Nor the Holiness of God. God cannot tolerate or allow sin in heaven because of His Holiness. Excluded is anything or anyone who is not holy.
Because Mankind died with Adam, none have a righteousness or holiness of their own. None can attain heaven on their own merits due to their sinful nature, but also due to even one sin added to it. Paul in Romans agrees with King David - None are righteous, NOT EVEN ONE.
Therefore it is imperative to enter the Kingdom of Heaven through the narrow gate - that gate is Christ. For there is no other way that faith upon Christ alone and His death upon the cross paying for the sins of folks like us. There is no other way.
And if God will not accept anyone without that sheepskin, there has to be a place for immortal souls to go. And there is no other way of putting it, but that place is Hell.
It is a place where folks cannot move and burn like incense on a plate. They serve him as they were designed, but not in the presence of pure love, pure joy, and pure holiness of which God is.
Therefore, logically, those who do not believe in Hell, do not believe in the Holiness of God.
I agree with your disagreement! LOL. Looking back at what I wrote (in the middle of the night) I should have said that we need to TRY to live our lives worthy of the sacrifice made for us. As humans, we will always fall short, and, thanks be to God, he understands and forgives.
Somehow I feel a Coke commercial is needed here.
No hell?
Then there must be no heaven for him either?
Just for fun for someone who enjoys doing this.
Do a comparison between the word ‘heaven’ and the word ‘hell’ in the Bible and find out which is mentioned more often.
Don’t forget
Gehenna, Hades, netherworld, under the earth and all the other names for hell used in those days.
I think you will be surprised!
And who believes the NY Slimes anyway? LOL!
Another word to look for ‘Sheol’
“So, I am assuming that you believe there are sinless immortals in the world?”
No and I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion.
I’ve not read the council of Ephesus’ declarations nor am I familiar with Pelagius’ position other then what you’ve mentioned here. But according to what you have claimed what Pelagius believes in I would disagree with him. I believe scripture teaches that man inherited his sin nature through Adam. My statement regarding heaven and hell was in relation to man’s destinations after death and then judgment.
This direction also doesn’t deal with the problem of justification with the TULIP doctrine.
Rob Bell is a major leader in the “emergent church” actually his teaching does not differ a lot from CS Lewis and John Stott, teachers that many evangelicals disagree with without calling them heretics .. but Bell is on the edge on so many things most of the evangelical church now sees Bell as a false teacher and apostate
All things work together for the purpose and glory of God, the result of Bells book is a renewed interest in the doctrine of hell ... many sermons are being played on the internet and I suspect books will be written about hell and I would bet that some sound theology on hell emerges
>> In a book to be published this month, the pastor, Rob Bell, known for his provocative views and appeal among the young, describes as “misguided and toxic” the dogma that “a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better.” <<
Actually, St. Augustine (with great support from more ancient traditions, including Enoch) wrote that only Christians would find the eternal ecstatic bliss of the divine vision of Heaven. While he called the alternatives “Hell,” (”Hades,” in Greek, which was itself a translation of “Sheol,” in Hebrew), several hells were not at all Hellish. Those who strived to live righteously, and sought out a God they did not know by name would live in an afterlife which, although deprived of the beatific vision, would have many pleasures, joys, and companionship. Tartarus and Gehenna (metaphorical names) were reserved for the wicked and disobedient.
This notion of all Hell being a place of eternal torment stems from two false notions:
1. Poorly catechized Catholics, taught to fear the sufferings of purgatory, imagining that Hell had to be still infinitely worse. (This isn’t exactly false: the Hell of apostate Christians is not the benign hell of those ignorant of Christ.)
2. Calvin’s notion that all those who aren’t saved are totally depraved, and utterly incapable of any virtue.
Let’s make this a bit more simple.
If one can love something and also fear it, they can also love it and be apathetic about it.
An attraction towards something compared to an attraction away from something. Two opposite directions of attraction.
The opposite direction of attraction is not a void of attraction, but a revulsion.
The opposite charge of a positive ion is not a neutrally charged ion, but a negatively charged ion.
We might be attracted to certain qualities attributed to a person, while we fear other qualities also attributed to the same person, but they are different qualities being addressed attributed to the same person.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom uses the word ‘fear’ in the sense of moral reverence, not repulsion or dread or terror. It is consistent with the love for God or perhaps better expressed as ‘humility’.
sr4402:
Since this was not labelled a Caucus thread, there are some historical facts that are not correct in your post:
Some points about Rev. Bell’s theology before I get to the historical issues. I am Not a Presbyterian or Reformed so the TULIP doctrine of Calvin is not something that I embrace so I am not going to get into that. As for Rev. Bell, what he is teaching is pure heresy as both Scripture and Tradition [as confirmed by the Creeds] define that Christ will come again in Glory to Judge the Living and Dead, etc.
Now the First Council of Constantinopile was in 381AD which defined the relation between the Holy Spirit and the Father. Rather than use the term “homoousios” to the Holy Spirit, as was used against the Arian Heretcs at the Council of Nicea in 325 AD, the Council of Constantinopile in 381 AD added to the statement “We believe in the Holy Spirit” [which was all the Council of Nicea in 325 stated as it did not define what the Church believed about the Holy Spirit only it believed in the Holy SPirit] the additional language “The Lord giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and with the Father and Son is Worshiped and Glorified. He [The Holy Spirit] has spoken through the Prophets.
The language “With the Father and Son is Worshiped and Glorified” meant the Holy Spirit was due the same Adoration as the Father and Son and thus the Holy Spirit was equal to the Father and Son in terms of Divine Nature.
The Council of Ephesus in 431 dealt with the heresy of Nestorious who posited that only Christ humanity was born of Mary and thus Mary should not be called “Theotokos” because as Nestorious understood it, that would suggest that Divine Nature was born and died on the Cross. Nestorius’s views in essence were dualism, which was a heresy that was prominant in the early Church in various forms. Nestorius views implied that only the Human person of Christ was born and that is what died, rose from the dead, and the Divine Person did not. However, what Nestorius then was proposing could be seen to suggest that Christ was 2 Persons, which obviously could not be reconciled with the Nicene Creeds definition of Three Persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.
In the end, the Council of Ephesus in 431 AD affirmed Mary as “Theotokos” and rejected Nestorius’s theology. While it did not fully Define a Christological definition of the Divine Person of Christ and the Two Natures, Divine and Human in the Divine Person of Christ, it did in rejecting Nestorius’s doctrine help the Church better reflect on the orthodox Doctrine of the Incarnation which would be more formally defined by Pope Saint Leo the Great in 451 AD and the Council of Chalcedon.
Regards and hope this helps
The same is easily stated of post 40, however, for those in fellowship with God, being indwelt by Him, walking with Him, their statements are more than opinion and are truthfully real.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.